4 ms·
Literature is not really art appreciated through vision. It is a mental exercise. Reading by seeing the text is just one form of uploading the text into your br
by Freak_NL 3y ago
Literature is not really art appreciated through vision. It is a mental exercise. Reading by seeing the text is just one form of uploading the text into your brain; Braille and audio are two others. The layout and appearance of the text can add to the experience, but this is mostly¹ not required except to make reading the text as relaxed and comfortable as possible.
For a blind person sculpture can surely be as engrossing as for a sighted person.
1: Notable exceptions exist; e.g., House of Leaves.
- soneca 3y agoIf think listening audio books is a significantly different experience than reading a book. The narrator’s voice always add interpretation to the text, no matter how neutral they try to be. A monotone voice change how you interpret a character shouting or distressed. It might be a less intrusive interpretation of a written book than, e.g., a film adaptation. But it’s still very different from reading it. Braille, I presume, it’s the same. Nothing interpreting the words except your own mind.
- drewcoo 3y agoWell . . . maybe literature began orally but was experienced through some kind of group "individual imagination." And maybe today it's transmitted (when not by computer) in dead-tree tomes but, again maybe, the transmission is not the thing. Maybe the play is the thing. Or the story is. Whatever. For blind people, non-sequential events and non-serial stories exist. In fact, just like unfortunately distractedly-sighted people, that's most of real life. I realize seeing all sorts of ADHD stimuli might lead you to think you're "more aware," but everyone has an ability to process reality, which happens in real time simultaneously in many places at once.